163 replies to this topic

[xImmortalx]

Sarlic, on 27 March 2015 - 02:15 AM, said:

1. Why do you still play this game?

Because I'm a moron who keeps hoping that the powers that be will one day "get it" and turn MWO into a game that casual players will want to play and everyone will have fun with.

Sarlic, on 27 March 2015 - 02:15 AM, said:

2. Do you take regulary breaks? If so, why?

I took one long break from around the start of open beta till about a month ago. At first it was due to RL reasons (relocating halfway around the world, starting a new job). Stupid balancing band-**** such as ghost heat, gauss delay and the various things done to JJs almost made me give up on the game entirely, despite having put in >$200 up to that point(closer to $1k now).

Sarlic, on 27 March 2015 - 02:15 AM, said:

3. How can PGI improve? What would you like to have see it changed?

Stop the slavish adherence to everything TT/CBT. The source material is great for getting an understanding of how things are supposed to work, look and interact but not changing a weapon's damage/heat/recycle in order to better balance it because "that's how it was in CBT" is lazy and stupid. Stop trying to be TT fundamentalists and understand once and for all that specifications made for a turn-based board game have never and will never work in a competitive multiplayer quasi-shooter.

Also, this game needs a proper respawn gametype like previous MW games had. Respawn is more forgiving to newer players and getting a few kills in a respawn game will give them much more motivation to keep playing and maybe put some money in than getting insta-ganked by veterans in no-respawn.

[LordKnightFandragon]

xImmortalx, on 28 March 2015 - 07:59 AM, said:

Also, this game needs a proper respawn gametype like previous MW games had. Respawn is more forgiving to newer players and getting a few kills in a respawn game will give them much more motivation to keep playing and maybe put some money in than getting insta-ganked by veterans in no-respawn.

Only issue I sse with respawns in MW games is that instead of a true fight, its just the first wave goes in and who ever dies, dies. THen then the fresh mechs kill the damaged ones then those die and come back and kill the other damaged mechs and the cycle continues. Only if your a truly 1337 pilot do you survive multiple waves, but eventually, you get simply to worn down.

Other shooters, it works cuz there is healing to top you off afte an engagement.

While i understand your point, MW doesnt do real well with respawns. Maybe a limited pug respawn, 2 mechs maybe. I do agree it is annoying as a new player to die, not really know what happened, go into the next game and just kinda figure out along the way. A 2 mech respawn might be good, but unlimited like human shooters? meh.

[xImmortalx]

LordKnightFandragon, on 28 March 2015 - 08:42 AM, said:

Only issue I sse with respawns in MW games is that instead of a true fight, its just the first wave goes in and who ever dies, dies. THen then the fresh mechs kill the damaged ones then those die and come back and kill the other damaged mechs and the cycle continues. Only if your a truly 1337 pilot do you survive multiple waves, but eventually, you get simply to worn down.

Other shooters, it works cuz there is healing to top you off afte an engagement.

While i understand your point, MW doesnt do real well with respawns. Maybe a limited pug respawn, 2 mechs maybe. I do agree it is annoying as a new player to die, not really know what happened, go into the next game and just kinda figure out along the way. A 2 mech respawn might be good, but unlimited like human shooters? meh.

Actually CS:GO is a perect example of a shooter where respawn gametypes are great training despite the fact that no-respawn is the main gametype. You don't heal in respawn either but most veterans/pros point newer players towards respawn gametypes so that they can learn the basics before diving into competitive matchmaking.

Speaking of which, I'd love a competitive gametype where you play 3-5 rounds on a map in the same game.

[Obi1Raven]

1 - As many have pointed out I like the pace of the game, it can be a death ball, or a drawn out fight. Customisation, I find myself at work, on smurfys trying to squeeze another tonne of something somewhere.
My unit, a great bunch of guys to hang out with.
2 - I take breaks as life dictates, still try and get on for a quick squirt a few times a day.
3 - wow, where should the list start... Content, content, content. We have the basics, why not rehash those to something exciting, meaningful and ever-changing?

[ChaiXuan]

1. Why do i still play this game?

Over the last three and a half decades and watching game titles come and go, the PvP aspect of the BT and Mechwarrior franchise had always raised my blood pressure and got the adrenaline flowing. "me" versus "you" to the death, so to speak. If i die of a heart attack, it will be PGI's fault. <thanks Russ>

2. Do I take breaks?

Yes. Bio breaks. I have been hard at PGI's MWO since December 2012. This is the only title i play at the moment.

3. PGI improve? Changes?

I think PGI should have better advertising campaign to recruit the newer, younger, as well as mature player bases. More people and more content equals more capital to deliver a quality product to the existing player base.

[Satan n stuff]

Sarlic, on 27 March 2015 - 02:15 AM, said:

Let me hear your story.

1. Why do you still play this game?
Big stompy robots

2. Do you take regulary breaks? If so, why?
Yes, other games, boring grind.

3. How can PGI improve? What would you like to have see it changed?
PVE, proper objective based game modes for CW, actual strategy for planetary conquest ( Ties in with the game modes. )

I'd very much like to see different types of missions in CW and planetary zones that are more than just a slot to be taken or lost.
Imagine having a planetary map with each zone representing a specific map and game mode. To take a planet, you'd have to capture and hold most strategic targets ( specific zones ) for a certain amount of time.
You'd have to invade from one or more specific unprotected zones and work your way to the defenses to open up more of the planet's zones for the invaders. Then you'd have to take specific zones which can be cities, bases, space ports etc. You'll be able to attack any zone that isn't covered by an orbital gun, and you can attack any zone that's connected to a friendly unprotected zone by friendly territory. Defenders can counterattack any zone connected by friendly territory to a friendly zone with a strategic target on it.

Zones without strategic targets would require the attacker to either kill all the defenders or get a specific number of mechs to a point at the other end of the map without any defenders being in the general area, defenders win by killing all attackers, they also get ( destructible ) sensor towers to spot incoming attackers. These maps would be big and would have mostly homogenous terrain, ( meaning no LaneWarriorOnline ) this is intended to give the attackers lots of possible routes to reach the other side of the map.

Zones with strategic targets would have several targets scattered around the map, each one with it's own defenses, the attackers would need to take out all of these targets while the defenders try to kill them. These can be city maps, industrial areas, bases or the current CW maps and probably more.


I'm a bit too tired to give a more indepth description, I'll probably edit some stuff in later.

Edited by Satan n stuff, 28 March 2015 - 02:54 PM.

[Anjian]

Anjian, on 27 March 2015 - 06:55 PM, said:

1. I won't be playing this game if it wasn't for Community Warfare.

After thousands of pug drops, I can't stand to see Terra Therma, River City, Forest Valley and other awkward maps. Your patience can tolerate them until a certain point.

2. Yes I take regular breaks. Sometimes and often I take long breaks. Playing other games. One of these days, the break maybe permanent.

3. Improve? Too much to list. To start with, you need to break the Blob to Win mechanic. Another is to stop making maps with few narrow corridors, chokepoints, and gathering points that encourage blob formation and instead, create maps that allow for multiple lines of approach. This game loses depth because of this.

You also need to improve environmental hitpoints, or allow mechs to fire from a higher point to clear obstacles. This is done by raising the firing arm to a near shoulder height position when they fire. Your current system punishes artwork.

You also need to do passes over many mech designs to reduce and standardize hit box size across weight classes, and not let art work predetermnine vulnerability and invulnerability.

Passes must be made over older maps, increase their size, reduce their complexity, reduce accidental enivornment hits and foot traps, make them look brighter, clearer and certainly less muddy and eyestrain.

I will add that while I am still playing MWO right now, I don't know if I will remain to do so sometime later in the year. There are a number of games I am eyeing right now, the top of the list being World of Warships and the second being Armored Warfare, both of whom I already submitted my application for beta testing.

[Telmasa]

1. I like Mechwarrior - the mechs, the lore, the gameplay of MW4 (and a little bit of tabletop via megamek).

2. Sometimes I take breaks from being fed up - I often get the overall feeling that the "competitive metagame" on MW:O is a thinly coated B.S. contest, and when that sensation becomes too strong (and I remind myself not to take out frustration on the keyboard...), I play other games.

3. Oh geeze...just keep in mind, this is a "wishlist", not a set of demands:
- Open-layout map design (i.e. go back and redesign maps, and fix the collision/hitboxes for terrain while you're at it) with inspirations from prior MW titles & other games known for large, wide, fluid maps.
- Swap the angel/guardian versions of ECM around.
- Remove all cooldown/range quirks that add up to more than 10%; replace them with iterative quirks (such as burn time, velocity, etc.) - if quirks aren't balanced, you'll never get anything balanced right, and too much of a good thing is inherently unbalanced.
- Remove/alter consumables to have a far lower & subtler impact on the game. It should be a mild boost to gameplay - not a *defining aspect* of the gameplay. (And I just don't like "paytowin" gimmicks akin to 'gold ammo' from World of Tanks.)
- Add more rules to ghost heat (i.e. firing 2LPL+4ERML = more ghost heat than otherwise); the ghost-heat-rule-changes need only be *slight* if you rebalance the quirks first.
- Drastically change Community Warfare so that "spawn camps" can't happen. (there's lots of suggestions I won't bother going over in this post, I'm sure you can look around)
- Fix the Jump Jet animation/cooldown such that you can't tap the spacebar repeatedly/macro the jets as rapidly as you like.
- Allow 8v8 modes both in "public qeue" and "Community Warfare, perhaps as a toggled option so players can choose, if a sizable number of people still prefer 12v12 over 8v8. (This would fix alot of the perceived map imbalance, too.)
- Nerf Clan ERML & Streak SRMs: change the ranges for ERML or reduce the damage by 1; reduce the range of Streaks to 270 like all other SRMs (why do they need to be like MRMs, seriously?) & possibly introduce harsher ghost heat penalties for alpha-striking with streaks.
- Drop "new content" updates to every other month, until there's not such a large pile of game balance issues that need attention. I'd rather see things fixed so they are like new, than to see more new 'trinket' stuff like cockpit items or colors - and we have got a fairly large selections of mechs for the time being. (This would also make it easier to balance current content!)
- Once we reach a point where both the devs and players are (for the greater part) happier with the state of the game than they are disappointed or feeling it needs improvement, ADVERTISE! (though you might need to add in something like MW:O - Relaunched! to let people know it's made a new turn since the days of 2 years ago)

p.s. When I was browsing and saw this thread, I was really surprised that when I clicked on it, it wasn't a troll thread...kudos to you, OP lol

Edited by Telmasa, 28 March 2015 - 06:07 PM.

[Molossian Dog]

Sarlic, on 27 March 2015 - 02:15 AM, said:

1. Why do you still play this game?

Primarily because of the guys I am playing it with.
Second, there still are some cool moments from time to time, in private matches mostly, where you can fool yourself into believing this really is a BattleTech game.

Sarlic, on 27 March 2015 - 02:15 AM, said:

2. Do you take regulary breaks? If so, why?

Sometimes for a couple of weeks.
Mostly after major ****-ups by PGI. Especially those coming from disregard and lazyness.
Like UI2.0. Unusable. Also, its text was unreadable on my screen. Nobody cared.

Sarlic, on 27 March 2015 - 02:15 AM, said:

3. How can PGI improve? What would you like to have see it changed?

-Physics.
-Pace of game. Less point&click adventure.
-Gravitas. At least in CW should be consequences beyond the grind.
-Powercreep. n00b vs. veteran gap.
-Ambience. No descriptions, no lore, no voice acting, no direction. No Battletech! Just another death match.
-Missions. Campaigns. And the maps for that.
-Business model (yeah, I know. No chance)
-Related: Stop the pettiness. I constantly throw money at other games. Not this one. Paying money here makes you feel like a tool.
-Tutorials. Recruit lobby like private servers with active trainer volunteers.
-A plan by the devs. Not bandaids on top of bandaids.

In total I think you can sum it up with .... Depth.
This game is shallow. And I have heard of no plans to make it less so.
This game could be more, much more.

Actually I´d to add to my answer to "1. Why do you still play"
"Because of what the game could be."


--------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------

Duncan Jr Fischer, on 27 March 2015 - 09:45 AM, said:

3) Can PGI improve? They've had millions of opportunities to listen to community, they have failed 99,9% of them.
Making a scape-goat of IGP made some people believe, but if you pay attention to the deeds, not words, nothing has changed that much. We still have the same arena-shooter, with the same #1 user-hostile UI in the world, and 90%+ of the new content is shop-related - it's mechs and items, mechs and items again. Unfortunately, current CW is not that thing we have been waiting and buying mechs for since beta. And never will be.

Quoted for truth.

Edited by Molossian Dog, 28 March 2015 - 07:41 PM.

[Phashe]

1. Why do i still play this game?

I enjoy it for what it is, and I do not look to make it something else. I enjoy the PUGs. Love the short matches and the instant excitement. Real life is demanding, and sometimes I only have time for a match or two. It is perfect for that.

2. Do I take breaks?

Maybe for a week here or there as real life and family demands. I just do not play as much as some, nor am I as angry at the game as some. :-) But never because of frustration with the game.

3. PGI improve? Changes?

(a) New player experience sucks (C-bill grind for newb:. Takes too long to get your own hardware upto competitive loadouts, no help, no 2-mans in PUG solo que. etc, etc). Cannot believe a game can care so little about that, but 2 years and still no change, so meh. Guess they really do not care about bringing in new players.
( b ) new game modes. Capture the flag. king of the mountain. progressive drop (lights first minute, then mediums, etc, etc). Something new.
(c) My 2-4T ballistic weapon!! (I dont care about lore)

Edited by Phashe, 28 March 2015 - 08:35 PM.

[FETTY WAP]

1. ) This game is fun. I don't ask for too much.. and PGI already regularly updates it. A while ago I was not so fond, but after they've dropped IGP, everything seems to be coming along nicely.

2. ) I lose interest in the game every few months or so, and take a month break when that happens.

3. ) I'm not sure. I kinda want better collisions, but.. yeh.

[Typhon27]

Sarlic, on 27 March 2015 - 02:15 AM, said:

Let me hear your story.

1. Why do you still play this game?
For example: for the love of the franchise.

2. Do you take regulary breaks? If so, why?

3. How can PGI improve? What would you like to have see it changed?
For example ECM re-design, balance problems.

1) Making big robots blow up other big robots never gets old

2) I usually take a little break if I'm not interested in the challenge. When they make a big change to the game, I usually wait a few days to hear back how it is going before I check it out

3) Guard against power creep, I dont want TTK to get too crazy. Re size some of the mechs. Make CW more pug friendly somehow? Oooh, and collisions w destructible terrain!

Edited by Typhon27, 28 March 2015 - 08:44 PM.

[DasSibby]

1. Why do you still play this game?
It's a challenge, and each match plays out differently.

2. Do you take regulary breaks? If so, why?
Whenever I have 3-4 bad matches in a row that are complete rolls. I'll be back within a week normally though.

3. How can PGI improve? What would you like to have see it changed?

Ecm. Change guardian ECM so that all mechs can equip it, and make the current ECM mechs able to equip Angel ECM. Make the current ECM mechanic the Angel ECM mechanic and make it have a higher penalty. (say... 3-5 tons, or something.)

Fix the maps (Veridian Bog in particular) so that mechs don't get stuck on small pebbles.

LRMS. Make them direct fire weapons (with a faster travel time and damage buffs) and with indirect fire only allowed with spotting equipment (think NARC, TAG, Command Console, etc...) This will also give lights a legit spotting and scouting role, and make them dangerous.

Put more weapons into the game. MRMs, Blazers (already in timeline), etc. More weapons create more playstyle diversity, which is always welcomed.

PGI, I still care about you.

[Iskareot]

Its still cold out... almost summer and time to quit more then ... I miss the real game and I miss some of the early aspects of this game.


I do not miss any day the bad elo mm system.

[Xetelian]

I play this game because its great while stoned. I don't need twitch reflexes. Also into battle tech but when clans came out was my experience measure, even have the original CCG cards somewhere.

I take time off here and there, usually to break the monotony of solo queue.


Hit detection...please.

[Sagamore]

I've been a fan of the MechWarrior franchise for a very long time and just recently ventured into table top. Some of my most exciting moments in video gaming has been in MWO. You know those nail-biting brawls where you're ripped to shreds but somehow manage to land the killing blow on 2 other mechs and win the game for your team.

Besides the interest in the brand and the game play, this game really fits my lifestyle as a parent. I can play a few games here and there and its not a huge time commitment. Most of my friends these days are playing MOBAs (ex. Dota 2) which require on average 1 hour to queue and play a game. Much harder to commit to that...

Speaking of which, I've tried to get friends to play but they seem to have a short attention span and like to try the next "Beta" of whatever game is coming out (coincidentally they played more when MWO was Beta haha).

[Eider]

Giant ROBOT COMBATU!!! to be honest it feels more strategic than say hawken. At first i hated the one death no respawn thing but it just pushes you to do better.

[SaltBeef]

1. Well over a Grand spent

2. Yes but only days sometimes a week or two.

3. Single Player Campaign with Lore like mechs. 8 IS vs 5 Clan and Clan mechs are Superior but outnumbered in missions. Infantry and armor units Harrass you during missions. Better Hit reg. I am working to upgrade my Intefnet speed and would like to see that better my game experience.

Edited by SaltBeef, 29 March 2015 - 02:52 AM.

[Satan n stuff]

Satan n stuff, on 28 March 2015 - 10:23 AM, said:

I'd very much like to see different types of missions in CW and planetary zones that are more than just a slot to be taken or lost.
Imagine having a planetary map with each zone representing a specific map and game mode. To take a planet, you'd have to capture and hold most strategic targets ( specific zones ) for a certain amount of time.
You'd have to invade from one or more specific unprotected zones and work your way to the defenses to open up more of the planet's zones for the invaders. Then you'd have to take specific zones which can be cities, bases, space ports etc. You'll be able to attack any zone that isn't covered by an orbital gun, and you can attack any zone that's connected to a friendly unprotected zone by friendly territory. Defenders can counterattack any zone connected by friendly territory to a friendly zone with a strategic target on it. Depending on how it would play out, defenders might need more options for counterattacking.

Zones without strategic targets would require the attacker to either kill all the defenders or get a specific number of mechs to a point at the other end of the map without any defenders being in the general area, defenders win by killing all attackers, they also get ( destructible ) sensor towers to spot incoming attackers. These maps would be big and would have mostly homogenous terrain, ( meaning no LaneWarriorOnline ) this is intended to give the attackers lots of possible routes to reach the other side of the map.

Zones with strategic targets would have several targets scattered around the map, each one with it's own defenses, the attackers would need to take out all of these targets while the defenders try to kill them. These can be city maps, industrial areas, bases or the current CW maps and probably more.


I'm a bit too tired to give a more indepth description, I'll probably edit some stuff in later.

Instead of editing, I'll just quote it and give some additions.

Any zones that are cut off from the occupying side's reinforcements ( see quote ) will be automatically flipped after a set time, a timer of several hours would probably be best to give the occupying side a chance to clear the way for reinforcements to come in.

A space port is intended to be the final objective of the first phase of the invasion, to capture it you'll have to first take out all orbital guns covering it so your reinforcements can land after you've taken the space port. Once that is done you can attack the space port directily and if successful, the second phase starts where the invaders have to hold the planet against enemy reinforcements. The defenders and attackers will switch roles and a countdown will start, with a minimum time of 24? hours, this will be significantly longer if not all strategic targets have been taken by the invading faction, and the timer will adjust dynamically. If the invaders manage to hold the space port for the entire duration, the planet will be flipped.
I am thinking mechanically each strategic target would be worth a certain number of points per minute, once enough points have been collected the planet flips, the timer displays when the planet will be flipped at the current rate. Reducing the invaders' territory to just the space port could potentially extend the timer by weeks, so holding on to as much territory as possible is encouraged.
The faction that currently owns the planet does not get a timer regardless of whether or not they control the space port, their only objective is to hold the planet until their faction's attacking players can cut off access to it. If the countdown ( if active ) hasn't ended when this happens the invasion will have failed.

Taking a zone with an orbital gun will not automatically flip it's area denial effect, instead the effect will be disabled. The faction that holds the space port will reactivate all orbital guns in friendly zones, orbital guns in enemy controlled zones will retain their status when the space port is taken.

Taking or defending zones with strategic targets would give significant benefits to the players and/or units involved. For specific zones on specific planets, these benefits may include discounts on items or mechs. For all zones with strategic targets a significant loyalty point and cbill bonus is awarded to players on the winning team and a smaller bonus is awarded to the units of these players, the amount depending on the number of affiliated players participating in the battle.
Unit cbills bonuses would go to the unit coffer if it can be put to use, but I don't really see a good way to do that without making CW pay2win, so if that's not an option they would be split between unit members. Giving unit members a daily allowance to pay for consumable uses in CW could be a start, but that alone isn't a good reason to have a unit coffer. Unit loyalty bonuses would be split between unit members.

[C E Dwyer]

1 Been a Battle tech fan since the game came out as Battle Droids.

2 I took one at the start, of three months in closed beta, but now it rare I take more than a couple of days off.

3 I don't think there will be any more improvements sadly, I don't think PGI are capable, my last big hope was Cw and I find the maps dull with less chance for role warfare than the arena's.

with what we have, I would change the desin of the Battle master and make it look more like its supposed to, from the TRO
I would change the awesome, make it taller and thiner, and remove the dyasty shoulders from the Victor.

Game wise I would decrease the gravity in the games and boost jump jets, JJ's would have a use, because you could jump properly, and poptarting wouldn't come back because you would hang in the air longer and get shot to pieces.

Make the game more old school, people knock old school, but old school is what gave this game the start, whats made it different for over 25 years.

Ignore this and make it more point and click you haven't got a mech warrior game just a stompy Robot game you can get for any old kids console

Edited by Cathy, 29 March 2015 - 04:09 AM.